top of page
  • Soumya Pandey

SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER TPA

Updated: Jan 16

Author: Soumya Pandey

NMIMS, Bangalore

INTRODUCTION:

Society orders contact, exchange, or travel by means of its physical appearance. A property, whether portable or immovable, is moved from one individual to the next under a variety of circumstances and conditions, and for a variety of reasons. The trade could be a blessing, a legacy, or a resource obtained by paying maximum value.

When a movable property is transferred between vivos (between two living people), the Sales of Goods Act of 1930 comes into effect. When an immovable property is transferred from one living entity to another, the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 falls into play. If land is transferred from a deceased person to a living person or persons, the Rule of Progression would be extended. If an individual dies without leaving a will (intestate), the rule of intestate progression applies, and if an individual dies with a will, the law of settlor progression applies.[i]

Property has a much wider meaning in its true context. It includes not only money and other tangible items of considerable value, but also any intangible right regarded as a means or part of pay or riches. It is a man's right and interest in terrains and riches to the rejection of some. It is the freedom to enjoy and dump such objects in whatever manner he sees fit; he employs them in ways that are prohibited by statute.

The exploration paper would be an examination of the extent of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 according to its appropriateness over versatile and immovable property in India. It would basically try to demonstrate or invalidate the speculation that "Move of Property Act manages immovable property." Most of the arrangements of the Act identify with immovable property, however some of them accommodate portable property too. Every one of these perspectives would be investigated and accordingly, the exploration work would give a knowledge into the sorts of move managed in the Act and their immaterialism’ to portable and immovable property in that capacity.


MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Property may be movable and immovable.

Immovable Property:

According to the Act, "Immovable Property does not contain standing wood, growing harvests, or turf.".

The General Clauses Act describes "Immovable Property" as follows: "Immovable property will include land, benefits arising from land, and objects attached to the ground or permanently affixed to something related to the earth." The amount of restitution is immovable property, as is the mortgagee's premium of the immovable property sold. There are many clashing choices with regards to whether a home loan obligation is immovable property, however since contract obligation has been avoided from the meaning of an actionable case by Act 2 of 1900, it appears to be that a home loan obligation is all things considered, immovable property, however with the end goal of connection it is treated as versatile property. A full Bench of Rangoon High Court has said that a home loan, being move of an interest in immovable property, is immovable property, and that a suit to implement a home loan is a suit for land under the Letters Patent of the Chartered High Courts. Standing woods are trees and in this manner, they are not falling under the meaning of immovable property. Regardless, a natural product bearing tree is unquestionably not a standing timber and hence can be assigned immovable land.


MEANING OF TRANSFER

The term 'transfer' is distinguished by the word 'pass on.' In English law, this term refers to the relocation of a home in land in its narrower and more common sense; however, it is often used in a much wider sense to cover some form of bury vivos affirmation. In Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, the expression "move on" is used in the wider context referred to above. The transferor should have a stake in the land. Rent is very similar to the term 'move'.[ii]

A transfer of property does not prevent property from being arranged outside of India or in areas where the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not apply.[iii] If the transfer is affected where the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is in power, the privilege of the gatherings is to be controlled by the Court under the Transfer of Property Act.

Charge- A payment is not a land sale. No right is exchanged for the charge until an individual contribution is made or a privilege to install out of property agreed can be created.[iv] A sale of land, however, is defined as having a charge under the bankruptcy Acts.[v] A sale of land, however, is defined as having a fee under the bankruptcy Acts. The term is broader since any loyalty induced by a creditor affecting his property can be voidable as a false choice.[vi]

Trade off- A trade-off of questionable rights isn't a swap, but more based on speculation that there was a forerunner title or something similar in the meetings that the interpretation remembered and characterised. The situation would be peculiar if such a trade-off also moved assets to someone who does not have a previous title or a case to such title.[vii]

Deed of Appointment – A transfer is not legally binding, although it does require a deed of appointment.[viii] Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require that the 'living entity' who passes away be the same person who claimed, or owned, the property passed on. Anything that is required is a show of movement by a living person; under the segment, there may be a transition by an individual exercising authority over another's land. In this way, whether the donee of force of contract exercises his or her right to name a beneficial interest in the land, it amounts to a sale.[ix]

Exchange- A trade is a general exchange of one thing's obligation with another. The key difference between a trade and a contract is that in an exchange, no monetary thought is involved. A contract is when one property is exchanged for cash, and a bargain is when one movable property is exchanged for another movable property. An exchange is defined as the exchange of one stamp for another or shares in a restricted organisation.[x]

Will -A trade is a general exchange of one thing's obligation with another. The key difference between a trade and a contract is that in an exchange, no monetary thought is involved. A contract is when one property is exchanged for cash, and a bargain is when one movable property is exchanged for another movable property. An exchange is defined as the exchange of one stamp for another or shares in a restricted organisation.[xi] Where the beneficiary is not a living person, the articulation used is the creation of an interest in an unborn person as specified in Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882. A Muslim man carried out a record labelled 'will.' According to the principles of the executed archive, he transmitted those assets among his daughter and nephew during his lifetime and gave possession to the designated person. Despite the fact that it represented the recipients as beneficiaries, it was believed to be a campaign rather than a will. It was invalid because it was not an enrolled report.


PERSON COMPETENT TO TRANSFER

Each individual competent to arrangement and eligible for transferable property, or allowed to arrange off transferable property not his own, is skilled to transfer such property either fully or partially, and either completely or partially, under circumstances, to the degree and in the manner authorised and supported by any law currently in force.[xii] As a result, the gatherings must:

a. has accomplished the period of lion's share i.e., 18 years;

b. be of sound brain; and

c. not be precluded to go into an agreement by some other law pertinent to them.

The Transfer of Property Act automatically transfers to the transferee all of the interest on which the transferor is able to pass, as well as the legal episodes of that interest. Aside from cases where composition is expressly required by the Act, the Act often considers oral transfer by law.[xiii]

Position to arrange off property-If the transferor has no title to the property, he should have power to transfer it.[xiv] As example of power to transfer the property of another, the next might be referred to:- 'A specialist acting under force of lawyer, the donee of force of arrangement, the gatekeeper of a minor appropriately approved by the Court for that sake, the supervisor of a Hindu family in the event of need or to support the family, the council of director of maniac, a recipient when engaged by the Court, an agent or overseer having power to arrange off the property of the expired managed by area 307 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.[xv]

Contingent transfer- An interest based on a transfer of property and ward upon a requirement fails whether the fulfilment of the condition is unimaginable, or is prohibited by statute, or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it will circumvent the provisions of any law, or is fictitious, or requires or implies harm to another's person or property, or the Court regards it as corrupt or limited to public approach.


JUDICIAL REVIEW:

In Anand Behera v. State of Orissa[xvi], case the petitioner had obtained a licence to catch an appropriate amount of fish in the specific sections of the Chilika Lake from its proprietor Raja of parikud . The Orissa state abolition act 1951 was passed and the ownership of the state vested in the state of Orissa. The state of Orissa refused to recognise the licence of the petitioner. Petitioner contended that the fundamental rights under article 19 clause 1 subclause f and article 31 clause 1 are violated and also contended that catching and appropriating fish is a transaction relating to sale of future goods which is the fish and hence the act which is applicable only to immovable property would not be applicable to him. The court held that the lake is an immovable property and therefore the petitioners right to enter in that state with he did not own and carry away fish from the lake is equivalent to a profit a prendre in England and in India it is regarded as a benefit that arises out of the land as search is immovable property.

In Shantabai vs State of Bombay[xvii], Shantabai husband had been granted the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood from certain forests in his zamindari through an unregistered document. With the passing of the Madhya Pradesh abolition of proprietary rights act 1950 on proprietary rights in land vested in the state of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner was prohibited to Katni would. Supplied to the deputy commissioner and obtained from him an order under section 6 clause 2 of the act for meeting her to work the forest and started cutting trees. The divisional forest officer took action against her and passed an order directing that her name might be cancelled and the cut materials fitted. She moved to the state government against this order but to no effect. There there after she applied to the supreme court under article 32 of the constitution and contended that the for order of the forest officer in French her fundamental rights under article 19 clause 1 subclause f and 19-1 subclause the code talked about the phrase benefit arising out of land and held that right to enter upon land and cut trees is a benefit arising out of the land. This judgement was based on the Anand Behera case.

In the State of Orissa versus TitaGarh[xviii], paper mills company limited case, section 3 B Orissa sales Tax act 1970 empowered the state government to declare goods or classes of goods liable to be taxed. The government issued the notification through which standing trees and bamboo agreed to be served were liable to be taxed under the turnover of purchase to stop writ petitions filed by a group of those people who had entered into a contract and Timber contracts with the state. The content before the code that the subject matter of the bamboo contract was not a sale on purchase of good but was the lease of immovable property or what the creation of an interest in immovable property by way of grant of profit a prendre and due to this royalty payable under the bamboo contract could not be made eligible to either sales tax or purchase tax. The court held that spelling, cutting, obtaining and removing bamboo from forest areas for the manufacture of paper is a benefit to arise out of the land and it would be an interest in immovable property.

In Mosammat Bibi sayeeda v. State of Bihar[xix], certain municipal clothes were transferred to S. Sayed Haider Imam, father of Syed imam by his predecessor zamindar. He constructed 132 shops and let them out to diverse tenants on monthly rentals. The collection of shops was known as Patna Market in Patna. The state wanted to acquire these shocks under the Bihar land reforms act. The question raised in this case was about the meaning of the word Bazaar within section for class 8th of the Bihar land reforms act 30 of 1950. The appellants claimed in the writ petition that the shops are homestead within the meaning of section 2A of the Bihar land reforms act and these shocks are not bazaar. Hence, they do not waste in the state and therefore they remain to be property of the brilliance. The high court held that the constitutionality of the provisions of the act has not been challenged and also held that hertz aur bazar are vested in the state. A congregation of buyers and sellers is enough to institute a Bazaar and the right to hold a Bazaar is an interest in the land. The supreme court affirming the decision of the high court held that right to hold a bazaar is a benefit arising out of the immovable property.

In Jagdish vs Mangal Pandey[xx], the court held that the nature and intention are to be seen to determine whether it is movable or immovable. In case of trees apart from the size of the trees the relevant consideration would be the nature of the tree and the intention to cut the tree or to let it remain attached to the earth and in the former case it will be deemed as standing Timber while in the latter it remains as immovable property also referred to shantabai vs State of Bombay as discussed.


CONCLUSION:

The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 primarily regulates the transfer of immovable property. Aside from particular cases, the Act does not regulate the sale of land through legal means, such as a summons for court, a closeout, or relinquishment, or the transfer of title under separate statutes, such as the Hindu Succession Act. As a result, wills and legacies are not governed by the Act.

As a consequence, the physicist has come to the conclusion that the hypothesis is false. The Transfer of Property Act does not only deal with immovable property; it also deals with the transfer of immovable property. Segments 1–37 of the Act express the total agreements that relate to both movable and immovable property. From that point on, all of the Act's provisions govern the transfer of immovable property.

The 137 areas found inside have been divided into eight parts. Surprisingly, the Act does not define 'What is a transfer of property?' Nonetheless, in Section 5, it describes 'move' as an individual concept. The Act contains various methods of property transfer, but it does not consolidate laws on all methods of transfer in presence. The Act does not appear to be a completed code, as shown by the removal of the word "unite" from its Preamble.

According to the Act's Preamble, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is intended to revise or regulate the legislation relating to the transfer of property by protests of the assemblies. The Act establishes a clear, deliberate, and consistent legal framework for the transfer of immovable property. The Act completes the Code of Contracts and it is a sanctioned rule for transfers that occur in the course of an arrangement. The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 provides a statute that corresponds to the existing laws of testamentary and intestate transactions by providing provisions for between vivos transfers. The Act is not exhaustive and allows for the application of the principles of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience in particular cases by any arrangement of law.

REFERENCES [i] K, INTRODUCTION TO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, (August 27, 2010) <https://kanwarn.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/introduction-to-transfer-of-property-act-1882/> [ii] Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank PLC, (1990) 3 SCC 699 p.674. [iii] Prethi Singh v. Ganesh, AIR 1951 All 462. [iv] Gobinda Chandra v. Dwarka Nath, (1908) ILR 35 Cal 837. [v] Presidency Town Insolvency Act 1909, s 2(i). [vi] Ex Parte Lancaster, Re Marsden, (1883) 23 Ch D 311. [vii] Reddiar, MP v. An Ammal, (1971) 1 Mad LJ 225. [viii] Joshua v. Coalition Bank ,(1895) ILR 22 Cal 185 p.202. [ix] U Theta v. Aresena, 199 IC 903. [x] Kedar Nath v. Emperor, (1903) ILR 30 Cal 921. [xi] Vaizer v Putti Begam, AIR 1986 AP 159. [xii] Section 7, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [xiii] Section 9, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [xiv] Chintu v. Charan Singh ,77 IC 705, AIR 2001 SC 1754. [xv] Muninanjappa v. P Manual, (2001) 5 SCC 363, AIR 2001 SC 1754 [xvi] In Anand Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 17 [xvii] Shantabai vs State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 532 [xviii] State of Orissa versus TitaGarh AIR 1985 SC 129331 [xix] (1996) 9 SCC 51632 [xx] AIR 1986 ALL. 1833

100 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page